He considered that Mexico could not base its decisions on the future of T-MEC on the basis of defending sovereignty Juan Carlos Machurro, Partner responsible for the company’s transnational practices Santamarina and Cita.
The expert added, “Sovereignty does not depend on making decisions that isolate the country and entrench us in monopolistic practices that have proven ineffective, but on the contrary.”
male specialist If Mexico is the basis for the performance of the transition team And what has been done with regard to Chapter VIII and the Federal Government’s narrative in recent days, The picture is not encouraging.
He noted that the best case scenario was for Mexico to admit non-compliance and assume the obligation to rectify.
He noted the critical aspects that will frame the consultation schedules, once the US and Canadian governments begin the corresponding process for noting T-MEC abuses deriving from Mexican government policies in the energy sector.
“In this first phase, we will see negotiating teams from the US and Canada with a high level of preparation and knowledge of the agreement and the areas of non-compliance under discussion; the question is whether we expect the same from the Mexican team.”
Refusal of signals before consulting was already worrisome, but this increases when there is no non-compliance in the official discourse Because the energy sector is not covered by the treaty.
If there is no knowledge of the treaty and specific obligations in the sector, what kind of arrangement can be expected? Unfortunately nothing,” he commented.
first consequences He said the new teams would have to do three things at the same time.: discover the treaty itself, the legal reasons for Mexico’s mistakes and begin to measure the cost of the consequences; He said that preparing defensive arguments quickly, and the most difficult of them: explaining the situation to the President of the Republic, and proposing economically appropriate solutions, given the pressures and persuasion of those close to the National Palace.
He stressed that this “a lot of maneuvering in a very short time!”
He put forward the first predictable scenario: they will hardly reach an agreement and the matter will be resolved in a committee.
Additionally, anticipate additional complications, such as other review processes to be initiated by other trading partners, including the European Union, and by investors acting individually.
Expected arguments and claims from Canada and other trading partners will revolve around the same thing: Discriminatory policy in favor of state monopolies and freezing of procedures.
“A total turn to the ideological debate that has little or no relation to valid, binding and fully enforceable trade commitments,” he said.
The work carried out by the transitional team headed by Dr. Saeed did not achieve what the president expected if the goal was to preserve the energy sector and the negotiations remained in the hands of officials forced to defend what could not be defended. Under this scenario, the result is a reserved prediction.